Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The Respondent is a national of India date of birth 15 th May 1988. On the 8 th September 2014 the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Bart-Stewart) allowed her appeal against a decision to refuse to vary her leave to remain and to remove her from the United Kingdom pursuant to s47 of the Immigration Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. The Secretary of State now has permission to appeal against that decision.
i) The relevant period for the purpose of the Rule is �the grant of leave�, not the period actually studied;
ii) The determination contains an error of fact amounting to an error of law, since the period between January 2011 and October 2013 is in fact 33 months, not 22 as calculated by the Tribunal.
The determination does contain an error of fact. The period from January 2011 to October 2013 is not 22 months. It is, as the drafter of the grounds calculates, 33 months. This miscalculation was plainly relevant to the First-tier Tribunal�s decision to allow the appeal and in those circumstances must amount to an error of law.
The second issue raised by the grounds is less straightforward. The Secretary of State here contends that the relevant period for the purpose of calculating the 3 years of study is the �grant of leave�. Reference to the rule itself shows that this is not the case:
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.